Next Article in Journal
Interpretation of Dominant Features Governing Compressive Strength in One-Part Geopolymer
Previous Article in Journal
Model Tests and Interpretation of Earth Pressure Behind Existing and Newly Added Double-Row Piles Retaining Underground Supplementary Excavation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/buildings15203660
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Climatic Adaptation-Based Evaluation of Vernacular Anatolian Houses: A Comparative Analysis of Stone and Adobe Materials in Terms of Energy, Environment, and Thermal Comfort

by
Elif Gizem Yetkin
1 and
Gonca Özer Yaman
2,3,*
1
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Alanya University, Alanya 07400, Türkiye
2
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Bingöl University, Bingöl 12000, Türkiye
3
Centre for Energy, Environment, and Natural Disasters, Bingöl University, Bingöl 12000, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(20), 3660; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203660
Submission received: 23 August 2025 / Revised: 23 September 2025 / Accepted: 4 October 2025 / Published: 11 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Building Energy, Physics, Environment, and Systems)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

In terms of ensuring the sustainability of vernacular building culture, the evaluation of buildings should consider not only visual and cultural values but also energy efficiency, environmental impact, and indoor thermal comfort. This study comparatively examines the performance of stone and adobe wall materials, widely used in Anatolia, under different climatic conditions. In the simulations conducted using DesignBuilder software, building geometry and indoor use scenarios were kept constant, while only exterior wall material and climate data were treated as variables. Annual data for the year 2023 were analyzed. The findings indicate that adobe-walled structures stand out in hot and transitional climates with lower heating and cooling energy demands, reduced electricity consumption, lower carbon emissions, and better thermal comfort conditions. In Kars, representing a cold continental climate, both materials remained outside comfort thresholds; however, adobe structures performed better in terms of energy use, environmental impact, and thermal comfort. This comprehensive evaluation highlights the potential of climate-responsive use of local materials and offers valuable contributions to design strategies focused on sustainability and cultural heritage. The results present not only context-specific insights for Anatolia but also universally applicable, generalizable recommendations for other regions with similar climatic conditions and vernacular building cultures.

1. Introduction

Today, global warming, energy crises and the pursuit of sustainability have made energy efficiency a primary objective in the building sector [1]. Accordingly, the energy performance of modern buildings is analyzed in detail using digital simulation tools, and sustainable design decisions are developed based on these data [2]. Research on traditional (vernacular) houses, however, remains fragmented; in particular, the material-based sustainability of vernacular envelopes has not been examined in a consistent, comparative manner [3]. Oliver [4] defines vernacular architecture as structures shaped by local climate, materials, and cultural traditions, typically built without formal engineering input and embodying indigenous knowledge of sustainable living. Asquith & Vellinga [5] emphasize that vernacular buildings should be considered together with their environmental attributes—specifically, their adaptation to local climate and material conditions. These perspectives highlight the importance of vernacular buildings in the context of sustainable architecture. In Anatolia, traditional houses constructed with natural materials such as stone and adobe stand out with their spatial organization adapted to different climatic conditions and their passive energy strategies [6,7]. Equipped with features such as thick walls, natural shading, ventilation opportunities, and proper orientation, these buildings aimed to ensure indoor comfort without relying on modern mechanical systems [8]. In traditional houses in Anatolia, the primary wall construction materials are stone and adobe. Adobe is a building material made from a mixture of earth, clay, sand, and organic fibers, shaped using molds and dried naturally. Due to its low cost, local availability, and high thermal mass contributing to energy efficiency, adobe is especially preferred in hot and dry climate regions. Moreover, the use of adobe offers advantages in terms of environmental sustainability; studies highlight the material’s potential to reduce the carbon footprint [9,10,11].
In Anatolian vernacular housing, stone and adobe are the principal envelope materials shaped by climate, material availability, and craftsmanship. While stone stands out for its high thermal mass and durability, adobe offers significant advantages for sustainable construction thanks to its vapor permeability, low embodied energy, and natural insulating capacity. The heat-transfer and heat-storage characteristics, moisture behavior, and passive thermal performance of these materials have been extensively examined through both experimental studies and building-energy simulations [12,13]. There is also literature on occupant thermal comfort (PMV–PPD) and on operational carbon emissions [10,14]. The literature indicates that, owing to their high thermal mass and moisture-buffering capacity, adobe and stone can have marked effects on energy consumption, thermal comfort, and CO2 emissions; they can reduce cooling demand particularly in hot–dry climates with large diurnal temperature swings, whereas in cold continental climates layered/insulated wall assemblies become decisive for limiting heat losses. However, most existing studies are single-climate and use heterogeneous geometries; consequently, evidence that compares the independent effect of material under standardized conditions across multiple climates remains limited. This study aims to address that gap.
Energy and environmental performance of stone and adobe wall materials, as well as their impact on thermal comfort conditions, across different climatic regions of Anatolia using numerical simulation tools. Within the scope of this study, energy performance simulations of a traditional house were conducted for scenarios defined for three different climatic regions of Anatolia, focusing on stone and adobe building materials. To perform the simulations, the traditional house was converted into a three-dimensional digital model using DesignBuilder software. DesignBuilder is an advanced building energy modeling tool based on the EnergyPlus simulation engine, and it enables detailed analysis of various parameters such as building energy performance, energy consumption, thermal comfort, and environmental impacts [15,16]. Thanks to its integrated visual interface, DesignBuilder offers a user-friendly modeling environment and is therefore widely preferred in building performance simulations [17]. In the modeling process, building scenarios were created according to different climatic data, and separate simulations were conducted for each material (stone and adobe). These simulations were executed using the EnergyPlus engine, which operates in the background of the DesignBuilder software. EnergyPlus provides a physics-based analysis infrastructure that runs in hourly time steps, enabling comprehensive calculations of buildings’ energy systems, indoor environmental conditions, and interactions with the external environment. Utilizing this engine in the background, DesignBuilder allows users to generate both static and dynamic energy performance outputs and to produce detailed reports through a graphical interface. Through these simulations, annual energy consumption, heat losses/gains through walls, CO2 emissions, and thermal comfort indicators such as PMV/PPD were analyzed for each scenario, based on material and climate, and presented through comparative graphs and heat maps. The findings derived from the simulation outputs not only reveal energy and comfort performance but also emphasize the need to reassess traditional buildings in line with contemporary sustainability goals. The way the same structural form responds under different climate conditions with varying material configurations has been quantitatively demonstrated, and the environmental performance of local building materials has been supported with objective data. Thus, this study presents a unique methodological approach that contributes to the reevaluation of traditional houses within the context of sustainable architecture through multi-climate comparisons and material-based analyses.
This study quantitatively demonstrates the relative effects of stone and adobe walls on energy use, operational CO2, and thermal comfort across different Anatolian climates. To this end, a standardized prototype representing a vernacular typology was employed (fixed plan, window-to-wall ratio, orientation, and occupancy schedules); only the exterior wall material (stone or adobe) and the climate (three representative zones) were varied. The model was implemented in DesignBuilder/EnergyPlus; layered envelope assemblies and U-values, solution algorithms and control settings, as well as Met-Clo and set points are documented in the tables and figures. Modeling walls with equal total thickness is a deliberate normalization intended to isolate material effects; therefore, the findings should be read as a relative comparison, and any transfer to real buildings should consider local detailing and possible insulation additions, as discussed in the Limitations section. The contributions are as follows: (i) a standardized multi-climate comparison that isolates material differences, (ii) joint reporting of energy–carbon–comfort under common assumptions, and (iii) transparent presentation of the BPS setup and PMV/PPD assumptions.
In the following sections, we first outline the Conceptual Framework that examines the use of these materials across different regions of Anatolia, together with the study area and the climate clusters. We then provide details of the model setup (geometry, envelope assemblies, control strategies) and the evaluation metrics (energy, CO2 and PMV/PPD).

2. Conceptual Framework

Vernacular architecture in Anatolia has evolved in response to climatic, topographic, and socio-cultural factors, giving rise to region-specific building typologies. In these dwellings, local and natural materials such as stone and adobe have been employed using diverse techniques and in varying proportions, shaped by regional conditions and indigenous construction traditions. The architectural variety observed in settlements such as Safranbolu, Mardin, Bitlis, Bursa, Kayseri, and Harput reflects the rich morphological structure and cultural continuity of Anatolia’s vernacular-built environment. Stone and adobe have long served as the principal construction materials throughout many parts of Anatolia, offering notable environmental advantages due to their low embodied energy values.
Within the scope of this study, a preliminary investigation was carried out on vernacular houses located in various climatic and cultural regions of Turkey. The primary aim of the research is to identify the application methods, technical features, and functional roles of natural building materials like stone and adobe within regional architecture and traditional construction practices. Accordingly, the materials used in vernacular houses were examined through academic sources covering 26 different cities. The locations of these cities on the map, as well as visual and material data of the selected houses, are presented in Table 1.
This analysis offers valuable insight into understanding the spatial diversity and cultural continuity of traditional houses in different geographical regions of Türkiye through their construction materials. The table, which examines 26 provinces with varying climates, topographies, and social lifestyles, systematically reveals the regional variations in the wall construction materials used in traditional dwellings. It is observed that local and natural materials such as stone and adobe are utilized in both western cities like Edirne, Bursa, and İzmir, and eastern cities such as Erzurum, Diyarbakır, and Van. This highlights the widespread and functional use of these two materials across Anatolia. The durability and local availability of stone, as well as the ease of shaping and thermal insulation properties of adobe, have allowed these materials to be used together or alternately with different construction techniques for centuries. Therefore, this study makes a significant contribution to understanding how material use—an essential element of vernacular architecture—has shaped regional identities and how the stone–adobe interaction has ensured continuity in traditional building culture.
In light of the current energy crisis and concerns about carbon emissions, the potential of traditional buildings constructed with local materials is being reconsidered. Traditional houses represent examples that contribute to sustainability through structural solutions adapted to local climatic conditions and the use of passive energy strategies. However, these structures often fall short in generating quantitative data within modern building assessment systems, and their performance is usually described through qualitative observations. In line with building sustainability frameworks (e.g., EN 15978 [45] and ISO 21929 [46]), we operationalize environmental sustainability through: (i) operational energy demand (annual heating/cooling, kWh), (ii) operational carbon emissions computed from site energy with a fixed national grid emission factor, and (iii) indoor thermal comfort assessed by PMV/PPD and comfort hours according to ISO 7730 [47]/ASHRAE 55 [48]. Other dimensions-such as embodied carbon, water use, resource circularity, acoustic/visual/air quality, and socio-economic aspects-are acknowledged but remain outside the present scope. In this context, digital modeling and Building Performance Simulations (BPS) provide a means to objectively assess the energy, carbon, and comfort performance of traditional structures. Simulations make the impact of material properties, climatic conditions, and usage scenarios on building performance more visible, thus enabling a connection between traditional architecture and contemporary sustainability goals. In this study, this potential is explored by digitally modeling a traditional house built with local materials such as stone and adobe across different climate regions in Türkiye, and analyzing its energy consumption, thermal comfort, and carbon emissions comparatively. The structural durability and high thermal mass of stone, along with the breathability, low embodied energy, and natural insulation capacity of adobe, make these two materials significant in terms of sustainability. In this regard, it becomes evident that traditional architectural heritage should be reconsidered not only in cultural terms but also from environmental and energy perspectives. The findings make the influence of local materials on regional architecture more tangible and provide insights into how traditional buildings can be integrated with contemporary design and performance standards.

3. Scope, Limitations, and Method of the Study

3.1. Case Study

In this study, the selected building for modeling and simulations is a two-story traditional house located in the city center of Elazığ. In terms of its plan layout, facade elements, and material usage, it reflects the typical characteristics of vernacular houses commonly found in various regions of Anatolia. Therefore, the building has been considered a representative example of local residential architecture. The location (Figure 1a), photograph (Figure 1b), and floor plans of the building (Figure 1c,d) are presented below.
The entrance hall of the selected building is centrally located and connects to a transitional space leading to the garden, with symmetrically arranged rooms on either side. On the upper floor, there is a sofa—a characteristic space commonly found in traditional Turkish houses—accompanied by two rooms. The cantilevered bay window (şahnişin) on the exterior façade adds volumetric variety while preserving the traditional architectural identity through the use of timber support elements. At ground level, adobe walls are built upon rubble stone foundations. To ensure balanced transfer of lateral loads, the structure has been reinforced with wooden tie beams (hatıl). The flooring system consists of timber joists topped with wooden planks, while an earthen mortar layer was applied to the upper floors to provide natural insulation. The roof is constructed as a hipped form supported by a timber structural system.
Although several environmental analyses have been conducted on traditional houses in Elazığ [38,50,51], comparative evaluations with similar typologies in other climate regions remain limited—particularly regarding the diverse use of stone and adobe materials. Moreover, there is a notable lack of quantitative, simulation-based studies evaluating the energy performance, thermal comfort potential, and passive design strategies of these buildings.
In this study, the building was digitally modeled using both stone and adobe wall materials, enabling comparative analyses of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and comfort performance across different climatic regions. All physical properties of the building envelope (thermal conductivity, density, specific heat capacity, etc.) were defined using reliable data from literature and relevant standards. This approach allowed for a scientific evaluation of the sustainability potential of traditional construction materials.

3.2. Climate Zone Selection

In this study, the cities of Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars, which represent three different climate regions of Turkey, were selected. Figure 2 below illustrates the diverse climate types across Turkey based on the Köppen–Geiger climate classification [52].
Antalya city is located on the Mediterranean coast and falls under the Csa classification (hot–summer Mediterranean climate with mild winters and hot, dry summers), while Elazığ, situated on the western edge of Eastern Anatolia, is classified as BSk (cold semi-arid steppe climate). Kars is located in northeastern Anatolia and is classified as Dfb (humid continental climate with severe winters and precipitation throughout the year). Energy performance analyses conducted under different climatic conditions are critical for understanding how traditional building materials respond to varying environmental conditions in terms of durability, insulation, and heat retention. This diversity allows for assessing the sustainability potential of selected local materials (such as stone and adobe) not only within a specific region but also across different climate types. In this context, the climatic differences in the three representative cities (Antalya, Elazığ, Kars) used in the study enabled a comparative investigation of the thermal behavior of building envelope components, thereby enhancing the ability to develop recommendations on both regional and general scales.
The material properties used in this study are based on thermophysical data obtained from reliable sources in the literature. For adobe wall material, the thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and density values reported by [28] were used; for stone wall material, the values reported by [53] were taken as a basis. These values, presented in Table 2, were used as primary input in the energy performance analysis of the building envelope. The simulation process was conducted using only these two basic material types.
Both wall types were modeled as layered assemblies (interior plaster–structural core–exterior plaster). Geometry, window-to-wall ratio (WWR), orientation, and occupancy schedules were kept constant. To isolate the effect of material properties, an equal-total-thickness normalization was adopted for the stone and adobe variants. In this way, a relative comparison focused on material–climate interaction—rather than code-compliant design optimization—was enabled. For ease of interpretation, scale-free schematic sections of the adobe and stone exterior walls are provided in Figure 3, together with representative field photographs from the study region (taken on site by one of the authors).
The schematics in Figure 3 show the layer order and total thickness used in the simulations—2.5 cm earthen plaster + 45 cm structural core + 2.5 cm earthen plaster—along with the resulting steady-state U-values: adobe 1.157 W/m2·K, stone 2.276 W/m2·K. Performance modeling was carried out using these standardized sections; the schematics are not to scale.

3.3. Numerical Modeling Parameters and Simulation Inputs

In this subsection, the setup of the numerical model and the simulation inputs are presented systematically to ensure reproducibility. First, the data sources and the references used to derive the vernacular typology are summarized; then the geometry and envelope assemblies, occupancy profiles and control strategies, climate files, and solution algorithms are described. The final part states the reported output metrics and the normalization approach employed (equal total wall thickness).
Model inputs and data sources:
All geometric and construction details used in the simulations—plan dimensions, storey height, window sizes/WWR and orientation, as well as wall/roof/floor layer build-ups and material properties—were compiled from a structured literature review on vernacular houses in Elazığ/Harput and across Anatolia, rather than from new on-site measurements. The plans in Figure 1 were adapted from Yaman & Coşkun [49]. This building was selected because it is representative of an Anatolian vernacular house in terms of plan organization, façade elements, and material use. The study focuses on comparing climate and material effects at the typology level. To standardize the comparison and isolate the influence of the envelope material, the building was modeled as a free-standing mass; the geometry of adjacent buildings and mutual shading were not parameterized. This choice holds local urban variables constant in order to make material-driven differences more visible. The energy model of the selected traditional house was developed primarily in DesignBuilder (version 7.3.0.043). To illustrate that the model was created without surrounding context, Figure 4 presents a perspective view, and a top view is provided to show the building’s orientation.
Envelope components and properties:
During the modeling, the physical properties of the building-envelope elements—external walls, roof, floor, and windows (e.g., thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and density)-were specified based on the literature and local sources. The thermal properties of stone and adobe wall materials were derived from the studies compiled in Table 2 and adopted according to the reported details. The layered build-ups, total thicknesses, and U-values of the exterior wall, roof, floor, and window assemblies used in the model are summarized in Table 3.
In the model, adobe and stone walls were given the same total thickness (50 cm) to isolate performance differences attributable to material. The plinth was defined as stone only up to ~30 cm above ground level. Windows were modeled with “Generic CLEAR 3 mm” single glazing and timber frames; the glazing and frame U-values are reported separately. These U-values were automatically calculated by DesignBuilder/EnergyPlus from the conductivity values assigned to each layer and were used as simulation inputs.
Thermal zones and occupant behavior:
The building was modeled in DesignBuilder with each space represented as a separate thermal zone (rooms, common/sofa area, halls, kitchen, bathroom/WC, storage). For each zone, occupant-behavior parameters—schedules, metabolic rate, and clothing insulation—were specified to enable a realistic indoor-environment simulation. Usage profiles were assigned from DesignBuilder’s Residential Spaces templates in accordance with CIBSE TM59. Table 4 maps each actual zone to its template, and Table 5 lists the operational inputs (occupancy density, Met, Clo, heating/cooling setpoints, lighting level, and CO2 generation).
Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the thermal-zone scheme used in the study and the occupant-related operational inputs. The zone templates were selected from DesignBuilder’s “Residential Spaces” library and applied in a manner consistent with CIBSE TM59. Occupancy density, metabolic rate (Met), clothing insulation (Clo), thermostat setpoints, and lighting level were kept constant across all climate–material scenarios so that the relative effect of the envelope material could be isolated. The CO2 generation rate and lighting level were taken from the ASHRAE 90.1/62.1 libraries; setback values were applied during night-time/unoccupied hours. Infiltration rules were defined to be consistent with the templates, and mutual shading from neighboring buildings was not parameterized in the model. This setup is intended to ensure that differences in comfort (PMV/PPD) and energy use can be attributed to envelope properties rather than to usage profiles.
Climate data and orientation:
Typical meteorological year (EPW) files and the accompanying .STAT summaries were used for three representative Turkish cities—Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars. This choice enabled hour-by-hour coupling with local climate; typical/peak hot and peak cold periods were taken from the .STAT summaries. The locations of the studied cities within the country and their climate zones, according to the Köppen–Geiger classification, are shown in Figure 2 (adapted by the authors from 2017 data of the relevant agency). Building orientation was fixed to the true-north reference embedded in the climate files and kept identical across all scenarios; a flat site was assumed. For a visual indication of orientation, a plan (top) view of the model with a north arrow is provided in Figure 3.
Simulation setup and algorithms:
The model was run in DesignBuilder 7.3.0.043 using the EnergyPlus engine. The simulation time step was 30 min (2 per hour) with a warm-up of minimum 6 and maximum 25 days. Heat conduction was solved with the Conduction Transfer Function (CTF); interior/exterior convection correlations were TARP/DOE-2; solar distribution was set to Full exterior. The shadow-clipping algorithm was Sutherland–Hodgman and the sky diffuse model was Simple sky diffuse modeling. Neighbor-building shading was not included in the base scenario. HVAC/control strategies and thermostat setpoints were applied as specified in the preceding subsection. Thermal comfort was evaluated per ISO 7730/ASHRAE 55 using the PMV/PPD method; mean radiant temperature (MRT) and radiant asymmetry were handled with EnergyPlus defaults.
Output metrics, post-processing, and emission factor:
The performance indicators reported in this study are: (i) annual heating and cooling energy (kWh), (ii) site electricity (kWh), (iii) wall heat-balance components (annual sums of conductive losses/gains), and (iv) indoor thermal comfort in accordance with ISO 7730/ASHRAE 55 (PMV, PPD, and comfort hours within −0.5 ≤ PMV ≤ +0.5). Hourly EnergyPlus outputs were obtained via the DesignBuilder reporting interface and summarized at the whole-building level on monthly and annual bases. To show the relative effect of material type, differences and comparisons between the adobe and stone scenarios are presented graphically. Environmental sustainability is evaluated using three indicators: energy (annual heating–cooling energy and site electricity), CO2 (electricity consumption multiplied by a constant grid emission factor, EF), and thermal comfort (PMV, PPD, and comfort hours). Excluded from scope are other sustainability indicators such as embodied impacts (material/site embodied carbon), water and circularity metrics, and additional IEQ dimensions (e.g., acoustics). These items are beyond the present study’s scale and are left to future work in order to keep the method lean and to isolate material–climate interaction.

4. Comparative Analysis in Climatic and Material Contexts

In this section, the performance of stone and adobe wall systems under different climatic conditions is comparatively analyzed. The reference building model used in the study was kept constant; only the wall material type and climate data were varied to generate simulation scenarios. Simulations were conducted for representative cities in three different climate zones defined in Anatolia, with both stone and adobe materials applied in each zone. This comparative analysis aims to reveal the interaction between local material selection and climatic conditions, and to evaluate the significance of climate–material compatibility in traditional housing.

4.1. Analysis of Wall Heat Balance, Heating, Cooling, and Total Energy Consumption

Monthly heating energy consumption for stone and adobe wall materials was analyzed for the three cities located in different climate zones (Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars). In this context, wall heat balance-one of the key parameters influencing annual total energy consumption was evaluated to compare material performance. The heat gain and loss values obtained for each city–material combination directly affect the thermal performance of the building envelope. Graphs illustrating the Monthly Wall Heat Balance Values for each scenario are presented in Figure 5a,b below.
Negative values indicate heat losses from the building to the exterior, while positive values represent heat gains. The color scale allows for a comparative visualization of heat transfer performance under varying material and climate conditions. Wall heat balance data reflect the thermal exchange between the building envelope components and the outdoor environment, serving as a key indicator of both energy efficiency and thermal comfort. As illustrated in Figure 5a,b, negative values dominate most months of the year across all scenarios, indicating a net heat loss. Among all cases, the stone-walled building in Kars experiences the highest heat loss, reaching –6735 kWh in January and −5552 kWh in December. In contrast, the adobe-walled model in Antalya records positive values during the summer months, such as +1181 kWh in August, indicating a net heat gain. This pattern can be explained by the low insulation capacity of stone and the harsh winter conditions in Kars. Conversely, the thermal lag characteristic of adobe, combined with the mild Mediterranean climate of Antalya, contributes to summer heat gains, potentially reducing indoor cooling loads.
Following the wall heat balance analysis, the building’s heating energy consumption values were examined in relation to material and climate conditions. Figure 6a,b present a bar chart and a heat map illustrating the monthly total heating energy consumption based on the respective cities and wall materials.
The graphical data reveal significant differences in monthly heating energy consumption between stone and adobe wall materials across the cities of Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars, which represent different climate zones. According to the results shown in the bar chart and heat map, heating energy consumption peaks in January, February, and December, while it approaches nearly zero during June, July, and August. At the regional level, Kars records the highest heating demand throughout the year, whereas Antalya shows the lowest values and outcome directly related to climatic conditions. In terms of material-based comparison, stone-walled buildings consistently consume more heating energy than adobe-walled ones. Particularly in the cold climate of Kars, the stone-walled model reaches the highest monthly consumption value of 11,272 kWh in January. In contrast, adobe structures demonstrate lower consumption values, making them a more energy-efficient alternative. The visual distribution in the heat map supports these differences, as the intensity of the color gradient clearly reflects the impact of both climate and wall material on energy performance. These findings highlight the importance of considering regional climatic conditions when selecting building materials, as such decisions can significantly contribute to reducing energy consumption.
One of the key parameters affecting building energy consumption is cooling energy demand. The data related to cooling energy consumption have been visualized using both bar charts and heat maps. These graphics present a comparative analysis of the monthly cooling energy consumption for houses with adobe and stone wall materials located in Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars. The charts presented in Figure 7a,b illustrate how cooling requirements during the summer months vary depending on climatic conditions and wall material type.
When analyzing cooling energy consumption, both adobe and stone structures in Antalya exhibited high cooling loads during the summer months. Notably, in July and August, buildings with stone walls demonstrated higher energy consumption compared to those with adobe walls. In Elazığ, a similar pattern was observed, with stone-walled buildings consuming more cooling energy than adobe-walled ones. This distinction became particularly evident between June and September, suggesting that the lower thermal mass and delayed heat transfer of adobe may help mitigate cooling demands more effectively than stone in such climates.
In Kars, cooling requirements were significantly lower. Only minimal cooling loads were recorded for both adobe and stone structures in July and August, which can be attributed to the region’s cooler summer climate.
Overall, the findings indicate that while climatic differences play a dominant role in determining cooling energy needs, the choice of wall material can either amplify or moderate this effect.
To further illustrate the relationship between annual total energy consumption, building envelope materials, and climatic conditions, Figure 8a,b present a comparative visualization of total heating and cooling energy consumption for adobe and stone walls across the three cities. This comparison provides a clear understanding of how both geographic location and material selection influence building energy performance.
The graph presented in Figure 8 provides a comparative overview of the annual total heating and cooling energy consumption for adobe and stone wall materials across different climatic regions. According to the data, the heating energy demand in Kars—a city located in a cold climate zone—is significantly high for both wall types. Stone-walled buildings, in particular, exhibit the highest annual heating consumption, reaching 51,479.96 kWh. This result can be attributed to the low insulation capacity and high thermal conductivity of stone. In contrast, adobe walls in Kars demonstrate approximately 27% lower heating energy consumption compared to stone, indicating better insulation performance under cold climate conditions. In Antalya, where the hot climate prevails, heating demand is minimal, and cooling loads dominate the total energy consumption profile. Buildings with stone walls in Antalya exhibit higher cooling demand (7439.7 kWh) compared to adobe-walled structures. This can be explained by stone’s tendency to transfer heat rapidly, leading to poor thermal buffering. On the other hand, adobe walls benefit from high thermal mass, which helps moderate indoor temperatures through night-time cooling effects, thus reducing cooling loads. In Elazığ, which represents a transitional climate, both heating and cooling demands are more balanced. Even in this region, adobe outperforms stone in terms of overall energy consumption, offering greater energy efficiency. In summary, adobe wall material consistently results in lower total energy consumption across all climate zones, highlighting its advantages as a passive and energy-efficient building solution.

4.2. Analysis of Operational Energy Demand and Environmental Outcomes: Focus on Electricity, Gas, and Carbon Emissions

The graphs below visualize the monthly electricity consumption values for different city and building envelope combinations (Figure 9a,b).
An analysis of electricity consumption data reveals a significant increase in usage during the summer months in Antalya, a city located in a hot climate region. This rise is directly related to increased cooling loads caused by high outdoor temperatures. In particular, stone-walled buildings (e.g., Antalya Stone) recorded the highest electricity consumption, reaching 2837.80 kWh in July and 2806.89 kWh in August. In contrast, electricity consumption in Kars—a city in a cold climate region—was notably lower and remained relatively stable throughout the year. In both adobe and stone buildings in Kars, monthly electricity use showed minimal variation, even in winter months. This suggests that heating needs are largely met by alternative sources such as natural gas, and that electricity is mainly used for lighting and appliances. When comparing wall materials, adobe buildings generally consumed less electricity than their stone counterparts. For example, in Elazığ during July, adobe buildings consumed 1638.69 kWh, while stone buildings consumed 1822.06 kWh. This difference can be attributed to the breathable nature and better insulation properties of adobe walls. The ability of adobe to maintain cooler indoor conditions with less energy makes it a more efficient option in hot climates. Overall, a clear increase in electricity consumption is observed during the summer months in stone-walled buildings in Antalya and Elazığ, correlating with rising cooling demands.
The graphs presented in Figure 10a,b visualize the monthly natural gas consumption profiles of the analyzed buildings on an annual basis. The consumption data obtained for different climate regions and building envelope materials are comparatively analyzed to evaluate the impact of climatic conditions and material properties on energy demand. In this context, the variations in natural gas usage throughout the year are illustrated in detail, providing significant insights into building performance.
Seasonal fluctuations in gas consumption provide important insights for energy management. In all regions, the highest consumption occurs in January, February, and December, while usage drops to nearly zero during the summer months (June–September). This trend indicates that gas is used almost exclusively for heating purposes, while cooling demands are either met by alternative energy sources or are negligible. Therefore, developing climate-specific heating strategies and selecting building envelope materials with a focus on energy efficiency are crucial for achieving sustainable building practices.
The analysis reveals that gas consumption is largely influenced by climatic conditions. In Antalya, which exhibits characteristics of a hot climate, gas consumption remains near zero for most of the year. This suggests minimal heating demand and significant reliance on passive heat gains. In contrast, Kars, characterized by a harsh continental climate, shows significantly higher gas consumption during the winter. For example, in December, gas consumption in stone-walled buildings in Kars reaches up to 9263.76 kWh, while in Antalya adobe buildings it is only 1605.13 kWh.
From a material perspective, stone buildings consistently exhibit higher gas consumption compared to adobe buildings across all climate regions. For instance, in Elazığ, gas consumption in stone-walled structures during March is 3900.88 kWh, whereas in adobe-walled buildings it is 2883.75 kWh. This highlights the superior thermal performance of adobe in reducing heating energy demand.
The carbon emissions of buildings are closely related not only to the type of energy used but also to the material properties of the building envelope and the climatic region in which they are located. Monthly CO2 emission values of traditional houses constructed with adobe and stone materials in different cities are presented comparatively in Figure 11a,b.
The monthly CO2 emission values presented in Figure 11a,b vary according to the climate zones where the buildings are located and the type of wall material used (adobe, stone). In particular, CO2 emissions significantly increase during winter months due to the rise in heating demand. This indicates that stone structures lead to higher energy consumption and, consequently, higher CO2 emissions. In cold climate regions such as Kars, stone-walled buildings generated higher CO2 values throughout the year. For example, in December, the CO2 emission for the Kars Stone building was recorded as 2010.49 kgCO2, whereas it was 1537.16 kgCO2 for the Kars Adobe building in the same month. Similarly, in Elazığ, stone buildings exhibited higher CO2 emissions compared to adobe buildings. In Antalya, a hot climate region, although CO2 emissions increase in the summer due to cooling demands, the overall emission values are lower than in Elazığ and Kars. However, stone structures still produced more CO2 than adobe ones. For instance, in July, the CO2 emission for the Antalya Stone building was 1719.71 kgCO2, while for the Antalya Adobe building it was measured as 1520.74 kgCO2.

4.3. PMV–PPD Analysis of Adobe and Stone Buildings in Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars

The estimation of thermal comfort is based on the experimental studies conducted by [54] and the mathematical model that defines the thermal interaction between the human body and its environment. Within this scope, the value obtained using the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) function quantitatively expresses individuals’ thermal perception [55]. PMV is an index that predicts the average vote of a large group of people on a 7-point thermal sensation scale (see Table 6), based on the body’s heat balance. Thermal balance is achieved when the internal heat production of the body equals the heat loss to the environment [47].
In this scale, a value of “0” represents the optimal thermal comfort condition. According to ASHRAE 55 [48] and ISO 7730 [47] standards, the acceptable range for thermal comfort is considered to be −0.5 < PMV < +0.5 [56]. Within this range, approximately 90% of individuals are reported to feel thermally comfortable [55]. Associated with the PMV value, the PPD (Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied) indicates the percentage of individuals who are thermally dissatisfied with the environment. The relationship between PMV and PPD is illustrated in Figure 10. A PPD of 10% corresponds to a PMV range of ±0.5, and even when PMV = 0, approximately 5% of people are still dissatisfied. The PMV–PPD model is widely used and accepted for the field evaluation of design and comfort conditions [57]. The relationship between the PMV and PPD values is illustrated in Figure 12, which demonstrates how thermal dissatisfaction increases as the PMV value moves away from the comfort range. According to ASHRAE 55 [48], the acceptable comfort zone is defined between −0.5 and +0.5 PMV, corresponding to a predicted dissatisfaction rate below 10%. Even at PMV = 0, it is acknowledged that approximately 5% of occupants may still experience discomfort.
According to the ASHRAE 55 standard, the acceptable thermal comfort range is defined between PMV values of −0.5 and +0.5, within which the PPD value should remain below 10%. According to the Fanger Model, when the PMV value is close to 0, the PPD is approximately 5%, indicating ideal thermal comfort conditions. When the PMV value exceeds ±1, the PPD surpasses 25%, indicating a significant decrease in perceived thermal comfort. As the PMV value diverges from zero, the dissatisfaction rate increases; therefore, it is recommended to maintain the PMV value as close as possible to the neutral zone to ensure thermal comfort.
In this context, the thermal comfort performance of traditional houses with different building envelope materials across various climate regions was evaluated. Simulation results based on the PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied) parameters were analyzed within the framework of the ASHRAE 55 standard. The graphs presented below (Figure 13) visually illustrate the monthly variations in PMV and PPD values and demonstrate the impact of different building types on occupant comfort. These graphs provide insights into both temporal changes in thermal comfort and comparative evaluations based on material type and climatic conditions.
The analysis data presented in the graph, based on PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied) values, reveal that both the building envelope material and climatic conditions have a significant impact on indoor thermal comfort performance. In Antalya, which has a hot climate, the PMV values of both adobe and stone buildings remained within the comfort range of −0.5 to +0.5 for most of the year, with positive values observed particularly in the summer months. This indicates that natural ventilation opportunities and the thermal properties of the materials support user comfort in warm climates. Thanks to its low thermal conductivity, adobe material offered more stable comfort conditions in both summer and winter compared to stone, showing a more favorable performance. The fact that PPD values dropped below 10% in many months indicates a higher level of thermal comfort, especially in adobe structures. In Elazığ, which is characterized by a continental climate, PMV values ranged between −0.7 and −1.4 for most of the year, increasing the risk of users feeling cold. However, during the summer months (June–August), PMV values approached the comfort zone, and PPD rates dropped below 10%, indicating improved indoor comfort during seasonal transitions. In this context, adobe material responded better to day–night temperature fluctuations and provided lower PPD values compared to stone. In Kars, which lies in a cold climate zone, PMV values for both adobe and stone structures remained well below −0.5 throughout the year, and even in the summer months, the comfort zone was not achieved. Particularly in winter, PPD values for stone structures approached 60%, indicating severe thermal discomfort. Throughout the year, PPD values ranged between 30% and 65%, highlighting the inadequacy of thermal insulation provided by traditional building materials.

5. Findings and Discussion

In this study, the energy performance, environmental impact, and thermal comfort levels of stone and adobe wall systems were comparatively evaluated across three distinct climatic regions in Anatolia: Mediterranean (Antalya), continental transitional (Elazığ), and cold continental (Kars). Simulations were conducted and analyzed based on wall heat balance, heating and cooling energy consumption, electricity and gas usage, CO2 emissions, and thermal comfort conditions.
Wall Heat Balance: Wall heat balance, a key parameter that directly affects annual total energy consumption, represents the thermal exchange between the building envelope and the outdoor environment. The simulation results revealed predominantly negative values for most scenarios throughout the year, indicating net heat losses. The highest heat loss was observed in the stone structure located in Kars. Conversely, the adobe building in Antalya recorded positive values during the summer months. These findings demonstrate the low insulation capacity of stone under harsh winter conditions and the potential of adobe to alleviate cooling loads through thermal lag in hot climates.
Energy Consumption: In Kars, representing the cold climate zone, stone-walled buildings exhibited the highest annual heating energy consumption. Under the same conditions, adobe walls performed approximately 27% better in terms of reduced consumption. In Antalya, where cooling loads dominate, adobe structures required significantly less energy compared to stone-walled buildings.
Electricity and Natural Gas Use:
Electricity consumption notably increased in stone buildings in Antalya due to rising cooling demands during the summer. In Elazığ and Kars, natural gas usage peaked during winter months. These results indicate that stone buildings required higher energy inputs due to insufficient insulation, while adobe offered a more balanced consumption profile.
Carbon Emissions: In all climate zones, stone buildings generated higher CO2 emissions than adobe buildings. In December, stone buildings in Kars produced 2010.49 kgCO2, while adobe buildings released 1537.16 kgCO2. This difference reflects the environmental impact of construction materials driven by energy consumption.
Thermal Comfort (PMV-PPD): The PMV and PPD analyses clearly demonstrated the influence of material and climate conditions on indoor comfort. Adobe structures in Antalya remained within the acceptable comfort range (–0.5 to +0.5 PMV), and Elazığ approached similar levels in the summer. In contrast, buildings in Kars remained far below –0.5 PMV throughout the year, with PPD levels reaching 60%, indicating that both materials were inadequate in cold climates.
Overall assessment: Under the equal-total-thickness normalization, adobe outperformed stone walls across all three climates examined in heating energy, operational CO2, and mean PPD. This tendency is consistent with first-principles heat-transfer theory: lower thermal conductivity together with higher volumetric heat capacity reduces conductive losses in winter, while in summer thermal mass damps peak gains and introduces a phase shift, thereby lowering cooling demand [57]; EN ISO 13786 [58]. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the difference varies by climate and metric: in heating-dominated cold conditions (Kars), the heating/CO2 gaps are pronounced; in hot–dry conditions (Antalya), the reduction in cooling demand is most evident; and in the transitional climate (Elazığ), the seasonal balance can yield smaller month-to-month differences. Accordingly, the findings should be discussed not as a claim of universal superiority, but as the quantitative size of the material–climate interaction and the associated seasonal trade-offs ASHRAE-55 [48,57]; EN ISO 13786 [59,60,61].
Practical implications:
  • In hot–dry climates, high thermal mass and low thermal conductivity damp summer peak loads and reduce cooling demand; synergy is expected with night ventilation and effective shading.
  • In heating-dominated climates, layered/insulated stone envelopes can limit winter losses and narrow the performance gap; normalization against equal-U or code-minimum configurations should be tested in future work (EN ISO 13786; ASHRAE).
  • When energy–carbon–comfort is considered together, the increase in hours within the comfort band tends to track the energy/CO2 ranking, indicating that material choice has concurrent effects on occupant well-being and operating costs.
In conclusion, the alignment between local materials and climate is decisive for reducing energy use and improving occupant comfort. Under the standardized, equal-total-thickness and uninsulated envelope assumption used in this study, adobe consistently outperformed stone in hot and transitional climates across energy, operational CO2, and PMV/PPD indicators. In cold-continental conditions, adobe is viable when paired with additional insulation or layered assemblies; otherwise, neither material alone can meet year-round comfort targets. These findings highlight the importance of climate-responsive material selection for the sustainable conservation and adaptive reuse of historic housing. Future work will compare adobe and stone with code-minimum insulated modern envelopes, incorporate coupled modeling, and assess embodied carbon and other metrics.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Vernacular building materials specific to Anatolia offer sustainable solutions compatible with climate conditions, with low carbon footprints and the capacity for passive thermal comfort. These features should be prioritized in modern restoration and adaptive reuse projects. This study comparatively evaluated the thermal performance, energy consumption, environmental impacts, and user comfort (PMV–PPD) of two commonly used local wall materials in Anatolia—adobe and stone—under three different climatic conditions represented by the cities of Antalya (hot climate), Elazığ (continental transitional climate), and Kars (cold continental climate). In the simulations, the building model was kept constant, and only the climate data and exterior wall materials were varied.
The main findings obtained are summarized as follows:
  • Wall heat balance analyses revealed that stone-walled buildings experience high heat losses throughout the year, especially in cold climates. In contrast, adobe walls provide net heat gains during summer months in hot regions, contributing to better thermal regulation.
  • Heating energy demand significantly increased in stone-walled buildings, particularly in cold climates. Adobe walls, however, showed up to 27% lower consumption, indicating better insulation and energy efficiency.
  • Cooling loads were higher in stone-walled buildings in hot and transitional climates. Adobe walls, with their high thermal mass and heat delay characteristics, reduced cooling needs by maintaining more stable indoor temperatures.
  • Electricity and natural gas consumption was generally higher in stone wall scenarios throughout the year. This is attributed to the increased demand for both heating and cooling.
  • Carbon emissions were found to be higher in stone-walled buildings across all climate zones. This confirms adobe’s potential as a more environmentally friendly building material due to its low embodied energy.
  • PMV-PPD comfort analyses showed that adobe-walled buildings provided better user comfort in hot and transitional climates. However, in cold climates, neither material achieved thermal comfort levels, highlighting the need for additional insulation strategies.
  • In summary, the adobe wall scenario reduced annual heating energy in all three cities. For cooling, a decrease was observed in Antalya, while Elazığ showed a modest increase. Electricity use declined in Antalya and Elazığ, and operational CO2 emissions fell across all three cities. In Kars, electricity consumption remained relatively low and stable throughout the year, with most thermal demand met by natural gas. Average PPD values decreased in all climates, and absolute PMV magnitudes were lower with adobe. The Kars results clearly indicate that, in cold continental climates, vernacular envelopes require supplementary insulation to meet comfort targets.
These findings underscore that material–climate compatibility is a critical determinant in local housing design. In mild and hot climates, adobe outperforms stone in terms of energy use, operational CO2, and comfort, whereas in cold climates it remains viable only with additional insulation. The direction of the differences is consistent with first-principles heat-transfer theory: adobe’s lower thermal conductivity and higher volumetric heat capacity damp and delay peak heat gains under hot–dry conditions with large diurnal temperature swings, thereby reducing cooling demand. However, the magnitude and seasonal balance of this advantage vary by climate and by metric. In heating-dominated climates, layered/insulated stone envelopes limit winter losses; this is reflected in the PMV/PPD and energy results. Accordingly, the outcomes of this study are interpreted not as a claim of universal superiority but as climate-dependent trade-offs. Adobe and similar local materials can be reconsidered and adapted to contemporary needs—especially in hot and transitional climates—to develop energy-efficient housing typologies. In cold climates, these buildings should be supplemented with modern insulation systems to improve energy performance and ensure the sustainability of vernacular architecture. In heritage conservation practice, evaluation criteria should include thermal comfort and energy performance alongside visual and cultural integrity. Integrating such analytical, simulation-based approaches into rural and cultural heritage policies can support climate-responsive conservation strategies that preserve historical authenticity while embracing environmental responsibility.

Recommendations

  • Local vernacular building materials specific to Anatolia offer sustainable solutions with low carbon footprints and the ability to provide passive thermal comfort in alignment with regional climates. These materials should be given greater consideration in modern restoration and adaptive reuse projects.
  • Materials such as adobe can be reconsidered and modernized to meet contemporary housing needs, particularly in hot and transitional climate zones, to develop energy-efficient residential typologies.
  • In cold climate regions, the thermal insulation properties of adobe structures can be enhanced to improve energy performance. This would not only reduce energy consumption but also support the long-term sustainability of vernacular architecture.
  • In conservation practices, thermal comfort and energy performance should be included among evaluation criteria, alongside aesthetic and cultural integrity.
  • Integrating such simulation-based analyses into rural and cultural heritage policies can contribute to the development of climate-sensitive preservation approaches.
Future work. To broaden the contribution, we propose: (i) comparing adobe and stone with modern, code-compliant insulated envelopes under equal-U and code-minimum normalizations; (ii) coupled hygrothermal (moisture storage/transport) modeling and sensitivity analyses for local material properties; (iii) adding natural/night ventilation, solar shading, and adjacent-mass/shadowing effects; (iv) including embodied carbon using a life-cycle perspective; and (v) testing PMV/PPD robustness to different Met–Clo assumptions and control strategies, including behavioral uncertainty.
Limitations:
This study deliberately adopts simplifying assumptions to reveal material–climate effects in a clean and comparable way. The findings should be read as a relative comparison within the following bounds:
  • Equal total thickness was used to isolate material effects. Code-minimum or equal-U layered/insulated assemblies may change outcomes in real buildings.
  • Geometry, window-to-wall ratio, orientation, and occupancy schedules were standardized; no site-specific usage measurements were taken.
  • HVAC was represented with the EnergyPlus Ideal Loads Air System; equipment types and efficiencies were not modeled. Mechanical humidification/dehumidification, natural/night ventilation, and neighboring-building shading were not included.
  • Carbon accounting was limited to operational emissions using a fixed grid emission factor; embodied carbon, water, and circularity indicators were excluded.
  • PMV/PPD was reported with fixed Met–Clo and indoor air speed (0.1 m/s) for occupied hours only; these assumptions influence absolute comfort magnitudes.
  • Thermophysical properties of materials were taken from the literature; local material variability and coupled hygrothermal (heat–moisture) behavior were out of scope.
  • Infiltration and internal gains followed template-consistent assumptions and were not calibrated to field measurements.
Accordingly, the results are not claims of universal superiority but reflect the quantitative size of the material–climate interaction and its seasonal trade-offs under the stated assumptions. Future work should test equal-U and code-minimum normalizations, include coupled hygrothermal modeling, add natural/night ventilation and shading, represent HVAC with equipment efficiencies, and incorporate embodied-carbon impacts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Ö.Y. and E.G.Y.; methodology, G.Ö.Y. and E.G.Y.; software, Gonca Özer Yaman; validation, G.Ö.Y. and E.G.Y.; formal analysis, G.Ö.Y. and E.G.Y.; investigation, G.Ö.Y. and E.G.Y.; resources, E.G.Y. and G.Ö.Y.; data curation, G.Ö.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G.Y. and G.Ö.Y.; writing—review and editing, E.G.Y. and G.Ö.Y.; visualization, G.Ö.Y.; supervision, E.G.Y. and G.Ö.Y.; project administration, Elif Gizem Yetkin and G.Ö.Y.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

All simulation input files, climate data, and result datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to M. Coşkun for providing the archival drawings of the case study house and to the occupants who shared insights into the building’s historical use.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, A.; Connors, S.L.; Péan, C.; Berger, S.; Caud, N.; Chen, Y.; Goldfarb, L.; Gomis, M.I. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2023; Volume 2, p. 2391. [Google Scholar]
  2. Crawley, D.B.; Lawrie, L.K.; Winkelmann, F.C.; Buhl, W.F.; Huang, Y.J.; Pedersen, C.O.; Strand, R.K.; Liesen, R.J.; Fisher, D.E.; Witte, M.J. EnergyPlus: Creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy Build. 2001, 33, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sayigh, A. Sustainable Vernacular Architecture: How the Past Can Enrich the Future; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Oliver, P. Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asquith, L.; Vellinga, M. Vernacular Architecture in the 21st Century: Theory, Education and Practice; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Manioğlu, G. Geleneksel mimaride iklimle uyumlu binalar: Mardin’de bir öğrenci atölyesi. In Proceedings of the VIII. Ulusal Tesisat Mühendisliği Kongresi, İzmir, Turkey, 25–28 October 2007; pp. 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  7. Turgutlugil, G.; Mıhlayanlar, E. Geleneksel konut binalarinda pasif tasarim stratejilerinin incelemesi: Tekirdağ ertuğrul mahallesi. Karesi J. Archit. 2024, 3, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  8. Akyildiz, N.A. Evaluation of sustainable traditional buildings in the context of energy efficiency and conservation. Int. J. Res.–GRANTHAALAYAH 2020, 8, 200–215. [Google Scholar]
  9. Manioğlu, G.; Yılmaz, Z. Energy efficient design strategies in the hot dry area of Turkey. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1301–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yüksek, İ.; Esin, T. Analysis of traditional rural houses in Turkey in terms of energy efficiency. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2013, 32, 643–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lertwattanaruk, P.; Choksiriwanna, J. The physical and thermal properties of adobe brick containing bagasse for earth construction. Int. J. Build. Urban Inter. Landsc. Technol. 2011, 1, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shukla, A.; Tiwari, G.; Sodha, M. Embodied energy analysis of adobe house. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bui, Q.-B.; Morel, J.-C.; Reddy, B.V.; Ghayad, W. Durability of rammed earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 912–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abanto, G.A.; Karkri, M.; Lefebvre, G.; Horn, M.; Solis, J.L.; Gómez, M.M. Thermal properties of adobe employed in peruvian rural areas: Experimental results and numerical simulation of a traditional bio-composite material. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2017, 6, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Parra-Saldivar, M.L.; Batty, W. Thermal behaviour of adobe constructions. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 1892–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chowdhury, D.; Neogi, S. Thermal performance evaluation of traditional walls and roof used in tropical climate using guarded hot box. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 218, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hofheinz, A.; Walker, R.; Purcell, C.E.; Kinnane, O. The hygrothermal properties of stone used in traditional construction: A Western European case study. Build. Environ. 2025, 276, 112855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ben-Alon, L.; Rempel, A.R. Thermal comfort and passive survivability in earthen buildings. Build. Environ. 2023, 238, 110339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Costa-Carrapico, I.; González, J.N.; Raslan, R.; Sanchez-Guevara, C. Understanding the challenges of determining thermal comfort in vernacular dwellings: A meta-analysis. J. Cult. Herit. 2022, 58, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jalali, Z.; Noorzai, E.; Heidari, S. Design and optimization of form and facade of an office building using the genetic algorithm. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2020, 26, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, H.; Zhai, Z.J. Advances in building simulation and computational techniques: A review between 1987 and 2014. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martinaitis, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Motuzienė, V.; Vilutienė, T. Importance of occupancy information when simulating energy demand of energy efficient house: A case study. Energy Build. 2015, 101, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Çetinmakas, T.A.; Canıtez, T. Edirne/keşan çamlıca (grabuna) köyü’nde kırsal mimari ve koruma sorunları. Digit. Int. J. Archit. Art Herit. 2023, 2, 124–162. [Google Scholar]
  24. Perker, Z.S.; Akincitürk, N. Geleneksel Konutlarda Fiziksel Değişim: Bursa’da Üç Örnek Yapı. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uumfd/issue/21674/233253 (accessed on 3 October 2025).
  25. Ergün, A.; Çavdar, E. Geleneksel balıkesir dursunbey evleri’nde yapım teknolojileri ve malzeme kullanımları. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg. 2010, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  26. Aktuğ, E.C. Yok olmaya yüz tutmuş geleneksel mimari: Izmir-kiraz-yağlar evleri. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniv. Sos. Bilim. Derg. 2023, 20, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ürer, H. Geleneksel türk evi ölçeğinde eskigediz evlerinin cephe düzenlemeleri. Sanat Tarihi Derg. 2013, 22, 189–230. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bacak, F.N.; Yaldız, E. Akseki ilçesi emiraşıklar mahallesi geleneksel konut mimarisi tescilli yapıları üzerine bir çalışma. Konya Sanat 2023, 6, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  29. Öztürk, D.; Halaç, H.H. Eskişehir laçin kirsalindaki geleneksel konutlarin mimari özellikleri. Türk. Bilim. Akad. Kültür Envant. Derg. 2024, 29, 39–62. [Google Scholar]
  30. Şenol, P.; Akan, A.E. Kırsal yaşam/kırsal konut: Bir yaşam biçimi olarak geleneksel kırsal konut kızılcık köyü örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniv. Fen Edeb. Fak. Sos. Bilim. Derg. 2011, 2011, 143–160. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karacag, A. Geleneksel türk konut mimarisine ankara-ulus’ tan bir örnek. MANAS Sos. Araştırmalar Derg. 2017, 6, 353–375. [Google Scholar]
  32. Öztürk, D. Seydişehir Geleneksel Konut Mimarsi. Master’s Thesis, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkiye, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Harputlugil, G.U.; Çetintürk, N. Geleneksel türk evi’nde isil konfor koşullarinin analizi: Safranbolu haci hüseyinler evi. Gazi Üniv. Mühendis. Mimar. Fak. Derg. 2005, 20, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  34. Turan, H. Sinop’ta geleneksel bir türk evi: Tercümanoğlu konaği. Süleyman Demirel Üniv. Fen Edeb. Fak. Sos. Bilim. Derg. 2018, 1, 58–90. [Google Scholar]
  35. Görgülü, H.C.; Koman, İ. Kayseri kırsalı’ndaki yığma konutlar için duvar tipi önerisi. Tasarım+ Kuram 2013, 9, 56–70. [Google Scholar]
  36. Özbek, K. Geleneksel Niğde Evleri Mekânsal Araştırması ve Kale Bölgesi Örnek Alanında Konut Yerleşimi ve Tipoloji-Morfoloji Ilişkisi. Master’s Thesis, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  37. Burak, B. Adana tufanbeyli ilçesinde kirsal mimari: Muharrem öner evi. Türk Dünya. Araştırmaları 2024, 136, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kasap, T.L. Karaman’da bir geleneksel türk evi: Tartan konaği. Turk. Online J. Des. Art Commun. 2023, 13, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Şahin, Y.D.; Çetintürk, E.N. Türk evi ölçeğinde geleneksel malatya evlerinin sosyo-kültürel sürdürebilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi 2020, 13, 50–67. [Google Scholar]
  40. Karaçizmeli, M. Urfa Ili Geleneksel Konut Yapılarının Malzeme ve Plan Tipi Farklılıklarının Iklimsel Performans Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Master’s Thesis, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Turkey, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Akgün, T.; Özen, H. Bayburt kırsal ev mimarisi. Mimar. Yaşam 2019, 4, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Olğun, T.N. Geleneksel konutların korunmasına yönelik bir inceleme: Elazığ evleri örneği. İdealkent 2022, 13, 2330–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Özer, G.; Oral, M. Sürdürülebilirlik bağlaminda; Geleneksel mimaride iklimle uyumlu yapılar: Elazığ-harput evleri üzerinde inceleme. Akad. Mühendislik Fen Bilim. Derg. 2017, 2, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yariş, S. Geleneksel türk evi mimarisinde diyarbakır evlerinin yeri üzerine bir değerlendirme. J. Turk. Res. Inst. 2020, 68, 313–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karakaş, B. Süryani Kırsal Mimarisi Üzerine bir Araştırma: Midyat-Haberli (Basibirn) Köyü Örneği. Master’s Thesis, Dicle University, Institute of Science and Technology, Diyarbakır, Turkey, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  46. Köşklü, Z.; Kındığılı, M.L. Geleneksel erzurum evlerine bir örnek: Yaşar ikizler evi. J. Turk. Res. Inst. 2018, 63, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Orhan, H.N.; Çakıcı, F.Z. Kars karakurt geleneksel konutlarının tipolojik analizi. J. Humanit. Tour. Res. 2023, 13, 338–353. [Google Scholar]
  48. Uşma, G.; Urfalıoğlu, N. Geleneksel van evlerinin cephe özellikleri ve tipolojisi üzerine bir inceleme. Çukurova Üniv. Mühendis. Mimar. Fak. Derg. 2018, 33, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mühürdaroğlu, K.; Direk, Y.S. Hakkâri yerel konutlarinin turizm açisindan irdelenmesi. Yüz. Yıl Üniv. Sos. Bilim. Enst. Derg. 2019, 3, 311–328. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yaman, G.Ö.; Coşkun, M. Tarihî çevrelerde sokak örneği: Elazığ kazım efendi sokak. In Mimarlik Alanindafarkli Yaklaşimlar; Çağlar, A., Ed.; Nobel: Ankara, Turkiye, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  51. Özdemir, S.; Ekici, B.B. Evaluation of the energy performance of traditional harput houses: Şefik gül house sample. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Appl. 2020, 4, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Özer, G. Restorasyon Sonrası Yeniden Işlevlendirilmiş Geleneksel Harput Evlerinde Ekolojik Değerlendirme. Master’s Thesis, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya, Türkiye, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  53. Müdürlüğü, M.G. Iklim Sınıflandırmaları. 2017. Available online: http://www.mgm.gov.tr/FILES/iklim/iklim_siniflandirmalari.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  54. Mıhlayanlar, E.; Umaroğulları, F. Kalker taş duvarlarda sıcaklık ve nem performansının incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniv. Mühendis.-Mimar. Fak. Derg. 2016, 31, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fanger, P.O. Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering; Danish Technical Press: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sözer, O. Termal Konfor Ve Enerji Verimliliği Odaklı Akıllı Klima Kontrol Sistemi. Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul, Turkiye, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  57. ISO 7730; Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  58. Pourshaghaghy, A.; Omidvari, M. Examination of thermal comfort in a hospital using PMV–PPD model. Appl. Ergon. 2012, 43, 1089–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. ASHRAE. Ashrae Handbook of Fundamentals; IP Edition–F09; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers: Peachtree, GA, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-933742-54-0. Available online: https://shop.iccsafe.org/media/wysiwyg/material/8950P217-toc.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2025).
  60. Bergman, T.L. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  61. Givoni, B. Passive Low Energy Cooling of Buildings; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 15 03660 g001
Figure 1. (a) Location, (b) Photograph, (c) Ground floor plan, (d) Upper floor plan of the dwelling analyzed in the study [49].
Figure 1. (a) Location, (b) Photograph, (c) Ground floor plan, (d) Upper floor plan of the dwelling analyzed in the study [49].
Buildings 15 03660 g001
Buildings 15 03660 g002
Figure 2. Köppen–Geiger climate classification map of Turkey and the three representative cities analyzed (Antalya, Elazığ, Kars) (Adapted by the authors from the source of [52]).
Figure 2. Köppen–Geiger climate classification map of Turkey and the three representative cities analyzed (Antalya, Elazığ, Kars) (Adapted by the authors from the source of [52]).
Buildings 15 03660 g002
Buildings 15 03660 g003
Figure 3. Local wall material configurations (schematic, not to scale; prepared by the authors) and contextual photographs from the study area (taken by one of the authors during fieldwork).
Figure 3. Local wall material configurations (schematic, not to scale; prepared by the authors) and contextual photographs from the study area (taken by one of the authors during fieldwork).
Buildings 15 03660 g003
Buildings 15 03660 g004
Figure 4. Base model developed in DesignBuilder: 3D perspective view and top view.
Figure 4. Base model developed in DesignBuilder: 3D perspective view and top view.
Buildings 15 03660 g004
Buildings 15 03660 g005
Figure 5. (a) Bar chart representation of the monthly wall heat balance values (kWh) calculated for stone and adobe wall materials in the cities of Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars. (b) Heat map of monthly wall heat balance values (kWh) categorized by city and wall type.
Figure 5. (a) Bar chart representation of the monthly wall heat balance values (kWh) calculated for stone and adobe wall materials in the cities of Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars. (b) Heat map of monthly wall heat balance values (kWh) categorized by city and wall type.
Buildings 15 03660 g005
Buildings 15 03660 g006
Figure 6. (a) Monthly Heating Energy Consumption (kWh)—Bar Chart, (b) Monthly Heating Energy Consumption (kWh)—Heat Map.
Figure 6. (a) Monthly Heating Energy Consumption (kWh)—Bar Chart, (b) Monthly Heating Energy Consumption (kWh)—Heat Map.
Buildings 15 03660 g006
Buildings 15 03660 g007
Figure 7. (a) Monthly Cooling Energy Consumption (kWh)—Bar Chart, (b) Monthly Cooling Energy Consumption (kWh)—Heatmap.
Figure 7. (a) Monthly Cooling Energy Consumption (kWh)—Bar Chart, (b) Monthly Cooling Energy Consumption (kWh)—Heatmap.
Buildings 15 03660 g007
Buildings 15 03660 g008
Figure 8. Annual total heating and cooling energy consumption for adobe and stone wall structures in (a) three climatic region sand (b) heatmap of the same values.
Figure 8. Annual total heating and cooling energy consumption for adobe and stone wall structures in (a) three climatic region sand (b) heatmap of the same values.
Buildings 15 03660 g008
Buildings 15 03660 g009
Figure 9. (a) Monthly electricity consumption (kWh) by city and wall type, visualized as a stacked area chart, (b) Heat map showing monthly electricity consumption (kWh) for adobe and stone wall structures.
Figure 9. (a) Monthly electricity consumption (kWh) by city and wall type, visualized as a stacked area chart, (b) Heat map showing monthly electricity consumption (kWh) for adobe and stone wall structures.
Buildings 15 03660 g009
Buildings 15 03660 g010
Figure 10. (a) Monthly gas consumption (kWh) by city and wall material type, illustrated as a stacked area chart, (b) Heat map of monthly gas consumption (kWh) for adobe and stone wall buildings in Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars.
Figure 10. (a) Monthly gas consumption (kWh) by city and wall material type, illustrated as a stacked area chart, (b) Heat map of monthly gas consumption (kWh) for adobe and stone wall buildings in Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars.
Buildings 15 03660 g010
Buildings 15 03660 g011aBuildings 15 03660 g011b
Figure 11. (a) Monthly CO2 Emissions by City and Wall Type (kgCO2)—Stacked Area Chart, (b). Monthly CO2 Emissions Heatmap—Visualization by City and Wall Type.
Figure 11. (a) Monthly CO2 Emissions by City and Wall Type (kgCO2)—Stacked Area Chart, (b). Monthly CO2 Emissions Heatmap—Visualization by City and Wall Type.
Buildings 15 03660 g011aBuildings 15 03660 g011b
Buildings 15 03660 g012
Figure 12. Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD) as a function of Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) (Adapted by the author based on ASHRAE Standard 55, 2017).
Figure 12. Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD) as a function of Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) (Adapted by the author based on ASHRAE Standard 55, 2017).
Buildings 15 03660 g012
Buildings 15 03660 g013
Figure 13. Monthly PMV and PPD Values for Adobe and Stone Structures in Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars: A Comparative Analysis According to the Fanger Model and ASHRAE 55 Standard.
Figure 13. Monthly PMV and PPD Values for Adobe and Stone Structures in Antalya, Elazığ, and Kars: A Comparative Analysis According to the Fanger Model and ASHRAE 55 Standard.
Buildings 15 03660 g013
Table 1. Regional Vernacular Housing Materials and Visual Evidence.
Table 1. Regional Vernacular Housing Materials and Visual Evidence.
Location of the cities with vernacular houses examined in the scope of the study on the map of Turkey.Buildings 15 03660 i001
City and Reference and Structural Notes and FigureCity and Reference and Structural Notes and Figure
1. Edirne [18].
Construction system/materials: The load-bearing structure is rubble-stone masonry. Exterior walls are 50–80 cm thick-typically thicker at the ground floor and reduced on the upper floors. Quoins are built with large, well-dressed stones, with smaller stones used as core/infill; no timber tie-beams (hatıl) are present in the exterior walls, and interior partitions are mostly adobe. In some cases, the buildings are oriented toward the south/east façades.		Buildings 15 03660 i0022. Bursa [19]. From a structural standpoint, traditional houses typically have ground-floor exterior walls/plinths built as stone masonry reinforced with timber tie beams, whereas the upper stores are timber-frame (hımış/bağdadi) constructions infilled with adobe, stone, or brick.Buildings 15 03660 i003
3. Balıkesir [20]. 2–3 storeys; foundation: rubble stone (30–100 cm); ground floor: stone masonry walls (50–80 cm); upper floors: timber frame with adobe infill (hımış), 8–12 cm timber ring beams; beam spacing ~60–150 cm; roof: gable/hipped with Turkish clay tiles; windows: timber; orientation: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i0044. İzmir: [21]. 2 storeys; ground floor: rubble-stone masonry with timber ring beams; upper floor: timber frame (hımış/bağdadi) with adobe and/or stone infill; roof: hipped with Turkish clay tiles; openings: dense on upper floor, limited on ground floor; plan: open exterior sofa (gallery), mostly east-oriented; wall thickness: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i005
5. Kütahya: [22]. Ground floor: stone masonry; upper floors: timber frame (hımış/bağdadi) with stone/brick/adobe infill; plan: inner/central sofa (mostly central); storeys: 2–3; setting/orientation: attached (party-wall) fabric aligned to the street; orientation shaped by sun, views, and parcel geometry; wall thickness: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i0066. Antalya: [23]. Akseki–Emiraşıklar “düğmeli” houses: stone walls with timber lacing/ring beams, dry-stone (timber ends visible on façades); siting: plot-attached with courtyard; ground floor: service/barn/storage; upper floor: living spaces; plan: inner and outer sofa (gallery) variants; openings: upper-floor windows aspect ≈ 1:2, smaller openings on ground floor; storeys: 1–2 (predominantly 2).Buildings 15 03660 i007
7. Eskişehir: [24]; hımış system (timber frame with adobe infill); finishes: earthen/adobe plaster (interior/exterior); roof: Turkish clay tiles; storeys: predominantly ground + 1 (~82%), single-storey ~14%, ground + 2 ~4%; siting: compact slope settlement with dwellings and ancillary/work units co-located; orientation governed by topography and plot geometry; external wall thickness: not specified; infill unit size: adobe ≈ 8 × 30 cm.Buildings 15 03660 i0088. Isparta: [25]. Ground floor of stone masonry (rubble/cut stone); upper floor timber frame (hımış/bağdadi) with adobe infill; finishes: earthen and/or lime plaster; floors: timber joists; façades/garden walls: stone; siting: compact slope settlement along both sides of the valley following the stream; orientation and opening pattern governed by topography and plot geometry; storeys: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i009
9. Ankara: [26]. Sloped plot; levels: basement + ground + first + attic; basement: rubble-stone masonry; ground: rubble stone + handmade brick; first floor: timber frame (bağdadi/hımış) with adobe/brick/stone infill; roof: hipped on timber structure, Marseille tiles; plan: similar to inner-sofa type; orientation: main façade/parcel to NE; topography allows external access to different floors; wall thickness: not specified, oriel (projecting bay) and balconies.Buildings 15 03660 i01010. Konya: [27]. Rubble-stone masonry; double-wythe stone with small-stone core (“helik”); surfaces finished with mud plaster; timber ring beams at intervals; floors: timber joists; roof: hipped on timber structure; wall thickness: basement ~80 cm, ground/upper 70–80 cm; plan: inner sofa (upper floor main living, lower floors service/storage); storey arrangement: mostly two storeys; façade finishes: cement-mortared joints/cladding or mud plaster; orientation: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i011
11. Kastamonu: [28]. Basement and/or ground floor in rubble/cut-stone masonry; 1–2 upper floors in timber frame (hımış/bağdadi) with adobe infill; exterior finished with fibred/adobe plaster; joinery: timber frames with single glazing; roof: hipped on timber structure, clay tiles; wall thickness: stone outer ~50 cm, adobe infill ~25 cm; plan: inner sofa (lower floors service/storage, upper floors living); siting on valley slopes; orientation governed by topography and plot geometry.Buildings 15 03660 i01212. Sinop: [29]. Basement in rubble-stone masonry; above, two storeys of timber frame with lath-and-plaster (bağdadi); roof: hipped with Turkish clay tiles; façades: lime plaster with local timber cladding; plan: inner sofa (“karnıyarık”) on both floors; storey arrangement: basement + ground + first; orientation: E–W axis, principal rooms facing E/NE with views; materials: pine/fir for framing and cladding, oak for main posts; windows: large timber-framed sash (guillotine); external wall thickness: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i013
13. Kayseri: [30]. Solid natural-stone masonry; street façade predominantly ashlar, other façades rough/fine-dressed stone; wall thickness ≥ 50 cm; siting on valley slopes and in the plain; orientation: tendency to face north due to strong S–SE and prevailing winds; roof/plan: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i01414. Niğde: [31]. Primary material stone (yellow trachyte common); black basalt used at quoins, window/door surrounds and corbels for projections; stone–adobe hybrids and all-adobe houses also occur. Story arrangement: mostly two stores. Wall thickness: basement 60–100 cm; ground/secondary walls 50–60 cm; upper floors in a thinner single-wythe stone. Plan: courtyard house; the hanay (sofa) reached by a few steps from the courtyard structures the layout; typical “room–sofa–room” sequence. Siting: on the slopes of Alaaddin Hill within the old walls, following the topography. Orientation: generally, S–SE tendency.Buildings 15 03660 i015
15. Adana: [32]. Storeys, two; plan: inner sofa; system: timber-frame hımış with stone infill + stone masonry; materials: stone, timber, earth mortar; roof: timber rafters with earthen cover; siting: sloped terrain—thick façade walls; entrance on the east façade; south façade with balcony/örtme (covered balcony); use: ground floor service, upper floor living; orientation governed by topography and solar conditions.Buildings 15 03660 i01616. Karaman: [33]. Load-bearing adobe walls; finishes: earthen plaster with straw (interiors with hair/egg additives); façade traces of timber ring beams; plan: central sofa; stores: two; roof/cover: earthen layer over reeds (flat/low-pitched); wall thickness—(not reported); orientation—(not reported).Buildings 15 03660 i017
17. Malatya: [34]. Walls stone up to 1–1.5 m, above adobe masonry; timber ring/tie elements common; storeys: mostly two, with occasional roof-level cihannüma (belvedere); plan: inner/outer sofa—ground floor service rooms (winter room, pantry, storage), upper floor living rooms; storey heights: ground ~3.50–4.30 m, upper ~3.40–3.60 m; façade: bays, arched/flat windows, timber privacy screens; interiors: raised platform (seki), built-in cupboards, hooded hearth; wall thickness/orientation: not reported.Buildings 15 03660 i01818. Şanlıurfa: [35]. Primary material local limestone (havara); mortar: “kül kireç” (limestone dust–lime–water); external walls: 20 × 10 × 50 cm ashlar blocks with havara chippings in joints, thickness ~60 cm at windowed/niched walls; internal partitions ~20 cm; in hot–dry climate, envelope 60–100 cm for thermal mass/time-lag; siting: party-wall urban fabric; plan: courtyard house, number/position of eyvans defines type; roof/orientation: not reported. Note: rural stock material shares ≈ 56.79% adobe, 39% stone, 4% concrete block, 0.03% brick.Buildings 15 03660 i019
19. Bayburt: [36]. Systems stone masonry, timber frame (hımış/bağdadi), and mixed (stone ground floor/timber upper); materials: stone–timber–earth; external wall thickness: stone masonry ~40 cm; storeys: 1–2 (ground barns/storage, upper living); plans: inner/central sofa, split (“karnıyarık”), types; roofs: local earthen cover (flat/low-pitched) and gable/hipped variants; openings: timber joinery, small layered windows on stone façades; siting: shaped by topography–climate–views, entrances mostly south-facing.Buildings 15 03660 i02020. Elâzığ: [37,38]. Stone-based adobe masonry; street façades with timber-framed oriels (cumba); exterior earthen/mud plaster; roof gable on timber with Turkish clay tiles; plinth: stone up to ~30 cm above grade, adobe walls above; urban fabric party-wall, street axis N–S; entrances to street, rear gardens—circulation along house–garden axis; plan central/side sofa with projecting bays on the upper floor; storey arrangement: mostly two storeys; wall thickness:—(not reported).Buildings 15 03660 i021
21. Diyarbakır: [39]. Load-bearing basalt masonry (male stone for walls/columns; female stone for courtyard paving/ornament); story arrangement: basement + 1–2 stores; plan: around a square/rectangular courtyard; summer wing with 1–3 iwans (≈15 cm above courtyard level), basement serdap; orientation: winter rooms to the south, summer rooms to the north; façades: plain/blank to street, open/ornamented to courtyard; fabric: dense party-wall inside the city walls, narrow lanes enhance mutual shading; wall thickness: (not reported).Buildings 15 03660 i02222. Mardin: [40]. Structure entirely stone masonry; primary material pale yellow limestone (ashlar); main façades in dressed ashlar, courtyard/secondary faces rough-dressed, rubble in inner cores and vaults/domes; timber for joinery/doors, iron for window grilles; plan: around an inner courtyard—ground floor service + 1–2 living units with open/semi-open spaces (courtyard/terrace/roof, iwan/arcade); upper-floor terraces/roofs used for daily work, drying, and summer sleeping; roof: traditional flat earthen roof; façades: plain to street, articulated/ornamented to courtyard; small windows; dominant façade mostly south; wall thickness:—(not reported).Buildings 15 03660 i023
23. Erzurum: [41]. Erzurum: rubble-stone masonry with timber ring beams (seismic lacing); plan: inner sofa, enclosed courtyard, with a tandır room; façade: projecting upper story (oriel/bay); fabric: party-wall; stores: two; wall thickness—(not reported); orientation/roof: not specified.Buildings 15 03660 i02424. Kars: [42]: Load-bearing masonry of dressed tuff/andesite (with rough-dressed and rubble stone in some cases); stores: 1–2 (mostly single-storey); roof: hipped/gable with sheet-metal covering; plan: rectangular (one case near-square); orientation: rooms mostly facing S/SW/SE; openings: varied timber-joinery window types; wall thickness:—(not reported).Buildings 15 03660 i025
25. Van: [43]. Stone foundations; stone up to plinth, above adobe masonry with timber ring beams; timber floors; roof: traditional flat earthen roof (some later hipped additions); plan: mostly inner sofa; storey arrangement: 1–2, main living on the upper floor; façades: plain to street, oriels common (balconies rare); joinery: timber, rectangular windows with iron grilles; finishes: earthen/adobe plaster; fabric: historic party-wall blocks with narrow lanes → strong mutual shading; wall thickness/orientation—(not reported).Buildings 15 03660 i02626. Hakkâri: [44]. Load-bearing stone masonry; locally adobe masonry with timber ring beams/lintels; interior/exterior straw-stabilized earthen plaster; wall thickness ~60 cm; storey arrangement: 1–2 storeys (example: 2); plan: inner sofa; façades plain/blank to street; ground floor small grilled slit windows, upper floor larger regular openings; fabric: compact, slope-adapted with narrow lanes—mix of detached and party-wall blocks, high mutual shading; orientation: not reported.Buildings 15 03660 i027
Note on Image and Data Use: The images included in Table 1 of this article were obtained from open-access sources published under the Creative Commons (CC BY) license, and have been properly cited. The accompanying research table was created by the author(s) based on these referenced sources.
Table 2. Thermal Properties of Stone and Adobe Wall Materials.
Table 2. Thermal Properties of Stone and Adobe Wall Materials.
DescriptionConductivity (W/m-K)Specific Heat (J/kg-K)Density (kg/m3)
Adobe wall material [28]0.729001650
Stone wall material [53]2.25 850 2440
Table 3. Layered assemblies and U-values of the building envelope components.
Table 3. Layered assemblies and U-values of the building envelope components.
ElementLayered Build-Up (Outside → Inside)Total ThicknessU (W/m2·K)
Adobe exterior wallExterior earthen plaster 2.5 cm + Adobe 45 cm + Interior earthen plaster 2.5 cm50 cm1.157
Stone exterior wallExterior earthen plaster 2.5 cm + Ashlar stone 45 cm + Interior earthen plaster 2.5 cm50 cm2.276
Plinth zone(~30 cm above grade) Ashlar/rubble stone + exterior earthen plaster 2.5 cm50 cm2.534
Ground-contact floorTimber finish + compacted earth fill + natural ground38 cm + natural ground0.487
RoofClay tiles 45 mm + timber boards ~20 mm (double-pitched)5.5 cm2.660
Glazing“Generic CLEAR 3 mm” single pane3 mm5.894
Window frameTimber frame20 cm3.633
Table 4. Mapping of zones to categories and assigned templates used in the study (DesignBuilder–TM59 compliant).
Table 4. Mapping of zones to categories and assigned templates used in the study (DesignBuilder–TM59 compliant).
Zone NameCategoryTemplate
Entrance Hall, Hall-1, Hall-2, Hall-3, Storage RoomCirculationCommon Circulation Areas (TM59)
Common SpaceLiving area1-Bed/3-Bed Living
Room-1, Room-2Living area3-Bed Living
Room-3, Room-4BedroomBed Living
Room-5BedroomSingle Bedroom
Room-6BedroomDouble Bedroom
KitchenKitchen2-Bed Living Kitchen
Bathroom, ToiletWet areasDomestic Toilet
Table 5. Operational inputs by zone category: occupancy density, Met, Clo, set points, lighting, and CO2 generation rate.
Table 5. Operational inputs by zone category: occupancy density, Met, Clo, set points, lighting, and CO2 generation rate.
Zone Category (Examples)Occupancy Density (Person/m2)MetClo (Winter/Summer)Heating Set/Setback (°C)Cooling Set/Setback (°C)Lighting (Lux)CO2 Generation (m3 s−1·W−1)
Circulation areas (Entrance Hall, Hall-1/2/3, Storage)0.0155–0.01961.01.0/0.518/1225/281003.82 × 10−7
Living areas (Sofa/Common Space, Room-1/2, etc.)0.01881.01.0/0.521/1225/281003.82 × 10−7
Bedrooms (Room-3/4/5/6)0.02291.01.0/0.518–21/1225/281003.82 × 10−7
Kitchen0.01881.01.0/0.521/1225/281003.82 × 10−7
Wet areas (Bathroom, WC)0.02430.91.0/0.518/1225/281003.82 × 10−7
Table 6. Seven-point thermal sensation scale [47].
Table 6. Seven-point thermal sensation scale [47].
Thermal SensationPMV Value
Hot+3
Warm+2
Slightly Warm+1
Neutral0
Slightly Cool−1
Cool−2
Cold−3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yetkin, E.G.; Yaman, G.Ö. Climatic Adaptation-Based Evaluation of Vernacular Anatolian Houses: A Comparative Analysis of Stone and Adobe Materials in Terms of Energy, Environment, and Thermal Comfort. Buildings 2025, 15, 3660. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203660

AMA Style

Yetkin EG, Yaman GÖ. Climatic Adaptation-Based Evaluation of Vernacular Anatolian Houses: A Comparative Analysis of Stone and Adobe Materials in Terms of Energy, Environment, and Thermal Comfort. Buildings. 2025; 15(20):3660. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203660

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yetkin, Elif Gizem, and Gonca Özer Yaman. 2025. "Climatic Adaptation-Based Evaluation of Vernacular Anatolian Houses: A Comparative Analysis of Stone and Adobe Materials in Terms of Energy, Environment, and Thermal Comfort" Buildings 15, no. 20: 3660. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203660

APA Style

Yetkin, E. G., & Yaman, G. Ö. (2025). Climatic Adaptation-Based Evaluation of Vernacular Anatolian Houses: A Comparative Analysis of Stone and Adobe Materials in Terms of Energy, Environment, and Thermal Comfort. Buildings, 15(20), 3660. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203660

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop